Originally Posted by beachbunny
Do you not mean, "he should [B]not[B] have been fooled by something
Sorry, poorly expressed. I meant
consequently, he was fooled by something, as of course,
he should not have, being fully alert and experienced.
In fact, I'm thinking that his persistance to do the same mistake all the way down would not find an explanation if his
possibly wrong initial reaction was not inverted at some point, when considering all the time it takes and the two other pilots.
Very puzzling. If the THS did not trim down, there was no nose down.
I have no explanation so far and I wonder if this is not the reason why the BEA is refraining from publishing a lot more up to this point. It could take them a very long work to sort all this mess out.